Bernie Sanders: "If we win the California primary with a decent vote, we're going to the White House - Polidicks

[QUOTE=gman003-main;50012169]Have you seen any Trump supporters? They're far, far worse than over-enthusiastic Bernie supporters. I'd take meme-spouting college kids over trigger-happy racist [B]thugs [/B]any day of the week, and twice on Saturdays.[/QUOTE] thats racist

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;50012179]thats racist[/QUOTE] Surprisingly enough, it isn't. Shocking, considering it came into English through the British Empire at their most British Imperialist, but it actually isn't. The Hindi word "ṭhaggī", meaning "thief", from the Sanskrit "sthaga", "concealed or fraudulant", from the proto-indo-european "*(s)teg-" meaning "to cover with a roof" (interestingly, the same PIE root at the Latin "toga"), predates the existence of the Thuggee gang. In other words, the Thuggee gang [I]named themselves[/I] as thieves, using a word that already existed and already meant "thief". This would be like if a "Thieves' Guild" formed in America, and then two hundred years later "tebu" became a Japanese word meaning "loud, violent criminal" derived from it. Minor evolution in meaning, but not anything the original users would have found inaccurate or even particularly insulting. Thus: not racist. Philology proves it.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;50010467]With a jump of 3% to 41% in less than a year— I am beginning to consider Sander's inevitable loss is all about timing and how little known he is. If we had one more year of campaigning, he may very well win. I am willing to bet— with full confidence— that Bernie Sanders will be the 46th President of The United States. 100% behind that projection like the many others I have made this election season.[/QUOTE] toxx clause pls

[QUOTE=OvB;50011519]Was Sanders expected to win AK?[/QUOTE] no

[QUOTE=Starpluck;50010467]With a jump of 3% to 41% in less than a year— I am beginning to consider Sander's inevitable loss is all about timing and how little known he is. If we had one more year of campaigning, he may very well win. I am willing to bet— with full confidence— that Bernie Sanders will be the 46th President of The United States. 100% behind that projection like the many others I have made this election season.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure he would start another campaign at that age. I wouldn't mind voting for someone like Tulsi Gabbard, though! I think, no matter the outcome, you're right; progressives will be in a very good place eight years from now.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50012090]iHave you been on a college campus recently? Bernie supporters are enough to turn someone off of a candidate. Yes, most people are that shallow[/QUOTE] On my college campus the trump supporters are the most vocal and annoying here, interestingly. [QUOTE=proch;50011503]If Bernie went up against Trump, he'd get stumped[/QUOTE] Trump's an awful debater. I think Bernie would have 2x the chance of Hillary when it came to the GE.

[QUOTE=The Rifleman;50011508][url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html[/url] RCP Average 3/3 - 3/22 -- -- 54.7 37.2 Sanders +17.5 FOX News 3/20 - 3/22 1016 RV 3.0 52 38 Sanders +14 Bloomberg 3/19 - 3/22 815 LV 3.4 58 34 Sanders +24 Quinnipiac 3/16 - 3/21 1451 RV 2.6 52 38 Sanders +14 CBS News/NY Times 3/17 - 3/20 1058 RV 4.0 53 38 Sanders +15 CNN/ORC 3/17 - 3/20 925 RV 3.0 58 38 Sanders +20 NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 3/3 - 3/6 1200 RV 2.8 55 37 Sanders +18[/QUOTE] These polls are unreliable. Why? Because a hypothetical Carson V Clinton fight would result in a Carson win more than 50+. There's also no smear campaign on Bernie yet. He had it so easy. [editline]27th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=phygon;50011634]and as far as I can tell bernie has no dirt on him at [I]all[/I][/QUOTE] That's because you ain't looking hard enough. He has Cold War dirt, pro rape statements, and anti gun control. The difference with Hillary is that Bernie is still a fresh target.

[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;50010452]I don't think that the optimism is unwarranted, being confident is pretty important for his image as a candidate. He still have a very real shot at securing the nomination, California is a complete game changer. With the way he has been performing in the polls as of late, I'm feeling reasonably confident. [b][URL="http://www.270towin.com/2016-democratic-nomination-polls/delegate-totals-maps/"]2016 Democratic Delegate Maps[/URL][/b][/QUOTE] why do some states even bother when california has a total of 548

[QUOTE=migs42;50012675]That's because you ain't looking hard enough. He has Cold War dirt, pro rape statements, and anti gun control. The difference with Hillary is that Bernie is still a fresh target.[/QUOTE]Hah, pro-rape statements? You mean that blatantly satirical, "Modest Proposal" level article he wrote for a college newspaper that anyone with more than two brain cells could tell was fucking satire? What republican is going to attack someone for not being pro-gun control? And what Cold War dirt?

[QUOTE=migs42;50012675]These polls are unreliable. Why? Because a hypothetical Carson V Clinton fight would result in a Carson win more than 50+. There's also no smear campaign on Bernie yet. He had it so easy. [editline]27th March 2016[/editline] That's because you ain't looking hard enough. He has Cold War dirt, pro rape statements, and anti gun control. The difference with Hillary is that Bernie is still a fresh target.[/QUOTE] Wasn't the pro-rape shit a total satire piece that was brought up early on in the primary season? Anti-gun control won't be a biggie when you're dealing with a Trump Vs Bernie scenario, besides that's been brought up as well, what cold war dirt are you talking about?.

Does the amount of unpledged delegates matter? As far as I can see, they wouldn't vote against the people's vote, which would be reflected solely in the amount of pledged delegates.

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;50012179]thats racist[/QUOTE] Calling white people thugs isn't racist.

[QUOTE=Tinter;50012780]Does the amount of unpledged delegates matter? As far as I can see, they wouldn't vote against the people's vote, which would be reflected solely in the amount of pledged delegates.[/QUOTE] Not until the national convention - they'll matter then. Very unlikely they'll vote against whoever wins the most pledged delegates, but possible.

[QUOTE=gman003-main;50012273]Surprisingly enough, it isn't. Shocking, considering it came into English through the British Empire at their most British Imperialist, but it actually isn't. The Hindi word "ṭhaggī", meaning "thief", from the Sanskrit "sthaga", "concealed or fraudulant", from the proto-indo-european "*(s)teg-" meaning "to cover with a roof" (interestingly, the same PIE root at the Latin "toga"), predates the existence of the Thuggee gang. In other words, the Thuggee gang [I]named themselves[/I] as thieves, using a word that already existed and already meant "thief". This would be like if a "Thieves' Guild" formed in America, and then two hundred years later "tebu" became a Japanese word meaning "loud, violent criminal" derived from it. Minor evolution in meaning, but not anything the original users would have found inaccurate or even particularly insulting. Thus: not racist. Philology proves it.[/QUOTE] I don't want to derail this thread, and I largely agree with you anyways but I think the etymology is irrelevant. Imagine you took a word, like sploog, and that word became connoted with something bad. That word is applied to all people who show it, until one day some groups of people are called sploogs way more than other groups of people, far out of their relative proportions of splooginess. Now to take this argument to the extreme, imagine those distributions exactly matched the distributions of the N word. You can't take a single case of the word and call it racist, but you could call a long term trend among a lot of people racist.

[QUOTE=DoctorSalt;50013013]I don't want to derail this thread, and I largely agree with you anyways but I think the etymology is irrelevant. Imagine you took a word, like sploog, and that word became connoted with something bad. That word is applied to all people who show it, until one day some groups of people are called sploogs way more than other groups of people, far out of their relative proportions of splooginess. Now to take this argument to the extreme, imagine those distributions exactly matched the distributions of the N word. You can't take a single case of the word and call it racist, but you could call a long term trend among a lot of people racist.[/QUOTE] Hey, I only call bad Greebs sploogs! Some of my best friends are Greebs!

[QUOTE=rilez;50012426]I'm not sure he would start another campaign at that age. I wouldn't mind voting for someone like Tulsi Gabbard, though! I think, no matter the outcome, you're right; progressives will be in a very good place eight years from now.[/QUOTE] Eight years from now? I don't want to wait that long, that's a tenth of my life

"Thug" is not inherently racist and isn't usually used in any attempt to be, but it is becoming rapidly associated with people who seek to use it as a substitute for less societally acceptable derogatory terms. Currently it all depends on context, though, and I dont see that changing for a good few years (and in that time its use by racial prejudists could have faded entirely).

[QUOTE=Tinter;50012780]Does the amount of unpledged delegates matter? As far as I can see, they wouldn't vote against the people's vote, which would be reflected solely in the amount of pledged delegates.[/QUOTE] They probably contribute subconsciously to how people vote at primaries and caucuses. Eg a candidate who has early backing from a lot of super delegates will appear credible, so it's kind of like a self-fulfilling prophecy. There might be another subconscious factor where, assuming Hillary reaches the required number of delegates for the convention even if she does not yet have the support of half of the pledged delegates, supporters for Bernie might believe that she's already won and it would be futile to continue campaigning for Bernie.

[QUOTE=migs42;50012675]That's because you ain't looking hard enough. He has Cold War dirt, pro rape statements, and anti gun control. The difference with Hillary is that Bernie is still a fresh target.[/QUOTE] if the pro-rape statement is about the article he wrote, it was basically a dime-a-dozen thought exercise for feminist academia literally anyone who's taken any kind of womens' studies class can look at his article and see exactly what his point was with all of it, it was an examination into gender roles as they exist in society and talking about the interrelation between modern sexual identity and violence. it's basically just Foucault.

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;50015597]if the pro-rape statement is about the article he wrote, it was basically a dime-a-dozen thought exercise for feminist academia literally anyone who's taken any kind of womens' studies class can look at his article and see exactly what his point was with all of it, it was an examination into gender roles as they exist in society and talking about the interrelation between modern sexual identity and violence. it's basically just Foucault.[/QUOTE] That won't be what the average voter hears on Facebook, and the average voter is incapable of fact-checking.

[QUOTE=Luni;50016166]That won't be what the average voter hears on Facebook, and the average voter is incapable of fact-checking.[/QUOTE] Most voters like that will vote Republican no matter what they hear on facebook anyway, they aren't going to be swung into voting a "commie". My parents quote false memeshit on Facebook all the times and laugh at how much of a *insert derogatory term here* Obama is.

I have a hard time imagining Bernie losing California